Case Digest (G.R. No. 5194)
Facts:
- Chinese Chamber of Commerce filed a complaint against Pua Te Ching et al. on May 14, 1908, involving an action upon a promissory note.
- The promissory note was made a part of the complaint.
- Defendants filed a general denial, admitting the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note.
- Defendants attempted to prove that the promissory note had been paid by the substitution of another promissory note.
- Plaintiff admitted that defendants proposed to extend the time of payment but refused the proposal.
- Lower court allowed the plaintiff to recover the balance of the promissory note with interest at 12 percent.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled that the admission of the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note by the defendants constituted a prima facie case for the plaintiff.
- The court ruled that ...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Under Section 103 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, when a promissory note is made a part of the pleadings and the defendant fails to deny its execution under oath, the genuineness and due execution of the note are admitted, and a prima facie case is made out for the plaintiff.
- In an action upon a contract to recover money, the only damage that may be recovered is the interest at the legal rate, unless another rate is stipulated.
- When a mort...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 5194)
Facts:
The case of Chinese Chamber of Commerce v. Pua Te Ching involves an action upon a promissory note. The plaintiff, Chinese Chamber of Commerce, filed a complaint against the defendants, Pua Te Ching et al., seeking to recover the amount stated in the promissory note. The promissory note was made a part of the complaint and the defendants filed a general denial, thereby admitting the genuineness and due execution of the note. As a result, a prima facie case was made out for the plaintiff without the need for further proof. The burden of proving payment or any other defense was on the defendants. During the trial, the defendants attempted to prove that the note had been paid by the substitution of another note, but the plaintiff denied this.
Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount stated in the promissory note, with interest, and whether the defendants' objections are valid.
Ruling:
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of the promissory note, with interest, and that the defendants' objections are without ...